Talk:2001/Archive 1

Archive 1

9/11 hijackers honored?

The way two hijackers are listed under September deaths makes it seems as though they are being honored, especially with the happy-photo of the Lebanese hijacker flying a smaller aircraft. As far as I'm concerned, that is an obscenity. CousinJohn (talk) 12:31, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

2000 United States presidential election

"George W. Bush will never suceed Bill Clinton as President of the United States of America after winning the U.S. presidential election, 2000" -- "winning" is putting it pretty loosely. --Daniel C. Boyer

Even more loose is saying "Bush was chosen over Gore". The Supreme Court ruled that the recount must stop, and Bush had more votes. Even if you don't like it, the fact remains that Bush won Florida, and thus the presidency, by having more votes. — [Unsigned and undated comment.]

Bush was declared the winner of the electoral vote, and thus the Presidency, by the Supreme Court. If the recount had continued, the outcome could have been different. Officially, Bush won the electoral vote and Gore won the popular vote. We'll never know exactly because not all of the votes will ever be recounted. But since Bush was declared the winner of the electoral vote, he was the winner of the presidential election, so that's what Wikipedia says, per reliable sources which state the same. --Jatkins ^{(talk - contribs)} 11:46, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Americentrism

Can someone fill in some other major events that occurred last year? The 2001 "events" listing only mentions major events related to America. Surely *something* happened in other parts of the world.  :)

A Space Odyssey

Should we have a link to 2001: A Space Odyssey higher on the page? (as per the Principle of least astonishment) --zandperl 00:33, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Trivia

I have just cleaned up some of the event entries. On was a person who died who was listed in the deaths section. Another was for an earthquake, that didn't appear to be significant. While another which seemed trivial, was about a radio announcer who has gone deaf. -- Popsracer 05:08, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

Bad link

I just removed www.webpostcalender.com - It is either a blog or a discussion site with mostly personal entries like the owner's child, etc. - Tεxτurε 19:11, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

Format

Removed bullets on see also box as per Wikipedia:WikiProject_Years --(talk to)BozMo 16:22, 16 May 2004 (UTC)

Navigation

I've tentatively added a navbox template to replace the rather unattractive navigational elements at the top of the page. Dicussion at WikiProject Years. -- Seth Ilys 23:49, 24 May 2004 (UTC)

A. Maitland Emmet

Some time ago, I added a small obituary entry for one A. Maitland Emmet, which disappeared in subsequent edits for some reason. I've replaced the entry. If anyone is wondering why he's noteworthy, well, among UK entomologists at least (and among quite a few in Continental Europe too) A. Maitland Emmet was a celebrated figure, and the author of The Scientific Names of the British Lepidoptera: Their History And Meaning, which is considered the definitive work of its kind (ISBN 0946589356). This work is of considerable utility value to taxonomists, and thus ties in with the various Wikipedia articles on scientific names. At the moment I am not able to build a full article on him, but hope to be able to at least start an article soon. Incidentally, I have a copy of his book and it makes compelling reading if you have an interest in these fields! Calilasseia 02:04, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

He's nowhere near important enough for here & is for 2001 in the United Kingdom. Jim Michael (talk) 22:45, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

RuneScape

Is it really that important that Runescape be counted as an important 2001 event? (see January) M. McNeish 22:16, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think so. I've taken it out. Slogby 23:25, 30 June 2007 (UTC) comment added by 143.120.89.155 (talk) 20:48, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Millennium

Massive error on this page: By traditional interpretation of the Gregorian Calendar, 2001 is also the first year of the 21st century and the 3rd millennium. Popular culture, however, views the year 2000 as holding this distinction

This is that dreadful mistake that keeps re-surfacing because some people don't know the difference between an anniversary an ordinal event.

Here's the explanation: in year 1 on January the 1st you celebrated the start of the first year. In every successive year, ie year n, the ist of jan marked the start of the year nth. So Jan 2000 marked the start of the 2000th year. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.114.64.3 (talk) 01:23, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

You're completely wrong, . A millenium is a period 1000 years long. The start of the 2000th year marks the point at which there is still one whole year left until the end of the current 1000 year long period. Just as the start of the first year (year 1) marks the beginning of the first... you guessed it... year long period. If you think of years as discrete objects, maybe you'll get it. In fact, think of it this way: a biennium is 2 years. The first year of the first biennum is 1. In the year 2 you don't celebrate the start of the new biennium. That happens in year 3. Get it?

Museum

• Proje4L / Elgiz Museum of Contemporary Art was opened —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.91.76.151 (talk) 19:46, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Date of Wikipedia formation is not relevant

I feel that the date wikipedia went online (January 15th) is not relevant. Just becuase the page is on wikipedia does not mean that the date is relevant enough to be displayed with events like George W. Bush being sworn as the american president and the like....

I have nothing against wikipedia(nor do i support George W. Bush, I am an Indian!)! I love the site...but it just seems to me that if this is getting put up, why not all the other websites? I'm sure many of them went online on January 15th..... Charmed4ever (talk) 03:14, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, I've removed it. It was not a significant event at the time at which it occurred. Metsfanmax (talk) 04:29, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I am glad you removed that because as "neat" as it is that WP was created on that date, including it undermines the integrity of WP as a source of valid knowledge and information that isn't skewed to conform to any one individuals personal outlook on events in history — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.139.48.22 (talk) 20:43, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Furthermore, I had to remove it again myself because someone had restored it. Let me be perfectly clear: You don't see every website that was created in 2001 listed here on this article, do you? No, you have cherry picked one website to include and included NONE of the others. I do not think a website being launched is worthy of inclusion on this page. If somebody wants to know when Wikipedia was created, they can go to the Wikipedia article on Wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.139.48.22 (talk) 20:46, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

I removed the tag questioning the importance of Wikipedia's founding date, as it seems like more of a joke than anything at this point. As good as it is to be humble and self-effacing (although no one individual is Wikipedia) I would think by now, (April 3, 2019) that Wikipedia's importance in society is well-established. True, the launch date of every website need not be included, but there are maybe 10-20 or so that it would seem obvious that need to be included, given how drastically they have transformed society, or because of their importance in the development of the internet--Google, Facebook, YouTube, Amazon, eBay, Twitter, AOL, MySpace, Yahoo and Wikipedia seem like obvious inclusions; you can debate where you draw the line after that. There's plenty of room and plenty of significance to include Wikipedia's launch date on this page, as I think should be laughably self-apparent by now.Ryan Reeder (talk) 21:06, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

King Dipendra of Nepal

Just wanted to point out; Dipendra was King of Nepal when died. GoodDay (talk) 20:53, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Sports

User:Fredler Brave wishes to added the following entry:

• November 4 – Marks the first time that the "big four" professional sports leagues play on the same day. On this day, the Arizona Diamondbacks defeat the New York Yankees in seven games for their first ever world series win; the soon to be Stanley Cup champion Detroit Red Wings lose to the Chicago Blackhawks 5-4; the soon to be Super Bowl champion New England Patriots defeat the Atlanta Falcons 24-10; the soon to be NBA Finals champion Los Angeles Lakers defeat the Utah Jazz 100-96.

I have removed it as a non-international event and suggest it be added to 2001 in sports. User:Fredler Brave continues to add it back in so I am moving it to the talk page to evoke discussion about appropriateness of the entry.

New Millennium World Peace Humanity Conference

Is this not the fact for entry? (from [1])

World-renowned scholars, thinkers and social activists gathered together in Seoul, Korea on June 15, 2001 to attend the New Millennium World Peace Humanity Conference. The conference was presented by the New Millennium Peace Foundation (NMPF) which is a non-governmental, independent organization founded by Dr. Ilchi Lee and Neale Donald Walsch in 1997. NMPF invited prestigious academicians, journalists, activists, and experts in the fields of religion, journalism, culture and the environment to make presentations and engage in discussions with an international audience. It was an ambitious attempt at exploring the concrete influence that spirituality can have on our current political, economic and cultural makeup.

Respectfully (User Gyvas-on-Lithuanian-pages), 26 Oct, 2009. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.219.64.32 (talk) 09:14, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Robert Hanssen: 15 years vs 20 years

This article states: February 18 – FBI agent Robert Hanssen is arrested and charged with spying for Russia for 15 years. According to both the english and the german article about Robert Hanssen, he was spying for more than 20 years. Please correct the entry in this article. White rotten rabbit (talk) 10:58, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

September 11 victims and hijackers

There are plenty of victims and hijackers that are worth noting on this page that had died in the September 11 attacks. Only the hijackers Mohammed Atta and Ziad Jarrah are noted on the page of people who died in the attacks. I would like it if you would add more people. Zipotur (talk) 17:15, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Disagree - the reason they are not in 2001 is they do not meet the criteria in WP:RY. Although a sad event for the victims and observers of the attack, there are many memorial sites in cyberspace that list victims and hijackers. These sites are a more appropriate memorial than Wikipedia. ttonyb (talk) 17:22, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I think it would be more appropriate to remove the hijackers from the list as it is giving them a recognition many people would say they definately do not deserve. --AycliffeAngel (talk) 20:44, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

From a visceral perspective I understand your comment; however, Wikipedia does not censor articles or content. Putting the individuals on the article is solely the placement of a factual statement and it should not be seen as an endorsement of them, their philosophy, or actions. I understand the subject may be uncomfortable or unpopular to some, but as you know censorship of any kind is a slippery slope. Thanks for your comment and interest in the article. ttonyb (talk) 00:10, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to reply. I understand where you are coming from. --AycliffeAngel (talk) 00:35, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Well then lets add FBI Agent Lenny Hatton, John P. O'Neill and others far more significant than those scumbags. Where do we draw the line, exactly?80.222.34.97 (talk) 21:08, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Neither meet the criteria for inclusion defined in WP:RY. ttonyb (talk) 22:00, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

The line is drawn at WP:RYB, and states that you can add some one who has articles in 10 different languages, and that "Any entry may be contested by any editor who finds the entry WP:undue; and, pending discussion, many names might not merit inclusion, even if they have enough non-English articles". So if you argue a good case you could tweak the people in the group for that date, its not a fully straight line as tony paints above. Ottawa4ever (talk) 21:38, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

If you are referring to the inclusion of John P. O'Neill, WP:RY states, "Births are only to be included if there are Wikipedia articles in at least ten languages about the individual in question." It specifically states there needs to be 10 articles.

If you are referring to the inclusion to the 9/11 hijackers, it should be noted that people are removed on the basis of lack of notability, not in an effort to censor Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not censored, certainly not based on an notable event that is "...offensive and just aggravates people." Unforgettably, life is full of terrible and offensive events. The inclusion of the hijackers in the recent years article is not a celebration of the individual, but only a notation of the death. ttonyb (talk) 22:44, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

There are many notable individuals you can include (Many, some of which come very close to RY criteria), And if someone wants to take the time to make 5 quick stubs in multiple languages to satisfy the quoted RY policy, more power to them-They at least need to know what they have to do, not a vague policy ref that to a new editor is way too confusing. Adding just one person not related to just the planning or execution of the events to that list would help alleviate alot of the concerns and give balanced weight to the life lossed on the day (I garantee this discussion will be repeated over and over until someone other than the hijackers appears in that list). Ottawa4ever (talk) 09:33, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Just a subscript I was actually thinking of Todd_Beamer rather than John O'Niell. though im wrong to say 5, he'll need i think 7 articles in multiple laguages. Thank you also for your prompt reply earlier. Ottawa4ever (talk) 09:38, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

• This article appears not to be subject to WP:RY, per consensus. That being said, we shouldn't rush to add marginally notable births or deaths. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:44, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

How to put the contents box up?

Why did you guys take down the contents box off of the years? I think they should go back up to make the topic cleaner and clearer. How do you put the table of contents such on articles anyway?Tanor Zeta Faux (talk) 09:09, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Popular culture has always held 2000 as the start of the 3rd millennium and 21st century

December 31, 1999/January 1, 2000 was celebrated worldwide as the beginning of the new millennium and 21st century. Just because there was no year 0 according to the Gregorian Calendar, doesn't make 2001 the first year of the new millennium and 2000 as the last of the previous one. It says 2-000, a 2 in front, not a 1 like all of the years of the 2nd millennium, also not a 9 as the second number like the years of 20th century. The year 2000 also doesn't have to finish to make 2000 years. There was a 1900, so 2000 is 100 years after that, just like 2000 was a thousand years after the year 1000. Also, when the year 1000 rolled over from the year 999 it added another decimal, when the year 99 rolled over into the year 100 it also added another decimal. The year 100 didn't begin a new millennium, but it did begin a new century just like all 0 years on wiki are already listed as the beginning year of a new decade. Just like when you celebrate anniversaries, like 50 a year anniversary. Bjoh249 (talk) 12:53, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

This has been rejected many times at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Time and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Years. Please discuss there if you wish to change the consensus. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:43, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Rupert Grint and Emma Watson are alive

In fact, their whole career started in 2001. They are listed among the deaths of 2001, but its obviously a mistake. Please correct it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.120.80.96 (talk) 16:55, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Done. Thanks. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:27, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Pictures?

Surely there could be more potraits of the deceased section to be added? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kentpaulgta (talk • contribs) 08:15, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

2,996 people vs 2,977 people died

I believe it is very important that we not lump in the 19 hijackers with the total number of people who died. To include those 19 hijackers in the number of people who died is to imply somehow that the hijackers were also victims of 9/11. I believe FIRMLY that we must reflect the fact that 2,977 people were killed in these attacks and that the 19 hijackers were not victims of the attacks nor were they "killed" they committed suicide — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.139.48.22 (talk) 20:42, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

 Not done: But the hijackers were people, and were people who died. That's like saying the Robin Williams death didn't count as he inflected on his self. This doesn't mean I don't despise the hijackers, I just think that they should be counted as people who just died on 9/11.—JJBers Public (talk) 16:40, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Whether or not the figure includes the hijackers, the wording did not match the figure given. It said "victims", but used the total number killed. Previously that entry had the number of victims killed, but was changed last month; I've reverted it. —Laoris (talk) 16:50, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 2001. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150717164811/http://www.defense.gov/Speeches/Speech.aspx?SpeechID=430 to http://www.defense.gov/speeches/speech.aspx?speechid=430

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:51, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Halo 1

Is the release of Halo 1 notable? I wouldn't think so. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:55, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Probably as notable as the release of Star Wars. From the Halo franchise, per our article "The games have sold over 65 million copies worldwide, with the games alone grossing almost $3.4 billion.". Notable. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:36, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

We don't usually list film releases either. Jim Michael (talk) 22:45, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Eclipses

See WT:YEARS#Eclipses for a matter relevant to this page. Arthur Rubin (alternate) (talk) 23:09, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Arthur Wheeler

I question whether this person has adequate international importance. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:12, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Image collage?

Would anyone object to me taking the pictures from the "Events" section and combining them (and more) into a collage at the top of the article so that more pictures can be represented in this article? The ganymedian (talk) 08:34, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

This is something that needs to be discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Years. Deb (talk) 10:14, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Amalia Mendoza en 1959.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:52, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Random arrow

Why is there a random arrow at the top of the page? The ganymedian (talk) 18:54, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Someone had partially removed a hidden note syntax. It is repaired. Left the collage hidden for now to resolve the complaint mentioned in the edit summary.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 19:50, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

I've removed the montage again. It was inserted by The ganymedian here on October 1st. That was a week ago, and has been since challenged by three editors - that means it falls within the remit of WP:BRD, and as such should be removed from the article while we discuss it.

I'm not against a montage per se, and note that other year articles also contain them - but I do think that a more diverse set of images should be used. At the moment with the exception of the UK foot and mouth crisis, all of the images are Americo-centric. The text makes mention of the Gujarat Earthquakes, but there's no image to corroborate. Chaheel Riens (talk) 06:55, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Hello @Chaheel Riens The photo in the bottom right is damage from that earthquake, although it may be confusing because it too is a desert environment like Afghanistan is. In the second version of the collage, center-bottom, I inserted the Nepalese royal massacre. I also consider Wikipedia to be a worldwide service, even though it was technically founded in the United States.

My argument for the other photos is that September 11 and the associated response with the declaration of the war on terror and the invasion of Afghanistan were pivotal, year-defining events for 2001, even if they were American-related.

I am willing to swap out the Enron photo, however, for something else.

I hope all others that are concerned with the photos in this collage see this message.

I work hard on creating these collages, so I look forward to repairing it and putting it back up as soon as a consensus is reached. It is my belief that adding images to the top of year-related articles make the articles more visually-appealing and more engaging. Thanks all. The ganymedian (talk) 07:19, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

2001 Collage debate

(Message copied from above):

The photo in the bottom right is damage from that earthquake, although it may be confusing because it too is a desert environment like Afghanistan is. In the second version of the collage, center-bottom, I inserted the Nepalese royal massacre. I also consider Wikipedia to be a worldwide service/event, even though it was technically founded in the United States.

My argument for the other photos is that September 11 and the associated response with the declaration of the war on terror and the invasion of Afghanistan were pivotal, year-defining events for 2001, even if they were American-related. Many other nations too place in the war on terror, including many NATO nations.

I am willing to swap out the Enron photo, however, for something else.

I hope all others that are concerned with the photos in this collage see this message.

I work hard on creating these collages, so I look forward to repairing it and putting it back up as soon as a consensus is reached. It is my belief that adding images to the top of year-related articles make the articles more visually-appealing and more engaging. Please let me know of any comments or ideas as soon as possible.

Thanks all.

The ganymedian (talk) 07:22, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

@Chaheel Riens:, @Loriendrew:, and @The ganymedian:

well here's my thoughts

9/11 (recommend using this photo), the founding of Wikipedia (recommend using this photo), and the start of the war on terror (recommend using this photo). must be on the collage.

in my opinion the 2001 United Kingdom foot-and-mouth outbreak, 2001 Gujarat earthquake, and the Nepalese royal massacre are really good candidates.

the bankruptcy of Enron and the iPod shouldn't probably be on the collage.

I think the war on terror and the invasion of Afghanistan should be combined under one photo

Chaheel Riens and Loriendrew what are your candidates for the collage, also you guys are free to go over to User talk:4me689/collage discussions to discuss collage pictures. 4me689 (talk) 08:28, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

I would be interested to know why you thought it was okay to include the collage without consulting anyone first. You are not the only person who has worked on this article, and many of us have given thought to countering the US bias.Deb (talk) 12:31, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

I didn't think it was necessary? @Deb I am relatively new to wikipedia, and I was under the impression that anyone could include information. Also, I feel like it would take much too long to get every person's consensus who has ever contributed to an article, as many haven't been active for years.

With all due respect, as I mentioned above, 9/11 and the war on terror were huge events for 2001 that in all likelihood dwarf other countries' events. Not a matter of bias, it's a matter of fact and history. I lived through 2001, and those two events were all I heard about for months in my country.

Thank for your understanding. The ganymedian (talk) 20:39, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

I understand that you are quite new, but consensus is essential; that's what Wikipedia is about. You don't have to ask everyone who has ever contributed, but the discussion must take place somewhere it will be seen by a lot of people, i.e. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Years. You and User:4me689 have been avoiding doing that so far, and have just been including what you think are the most important events. This is purely subjective. Please obtain consensus for the principle of including collages in Year articles, and discuss the content of each one before including it. Otherwise, just as you are free to add content, others are free to remove it. Deb (talk) 01:57, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Collage vote

Please vote on events for 2001

9/11

1. 911 is one of the most important events of the 21st century obviously it should be included on the collage 4me689 (talk) 02:22, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

War on Terror

1. the war on terror is one of the biggest things in the 21st century 4me689 (talk) 02:34, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia

1. obviously the founding of Wikipedia should be included cuz it's the site this message is at 4me689 (talk) 02:34, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

2001 Gujarat earthquake

1. a deadly earthquake and feels the natural disasters quota 4me689 (talk) 02:34, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Foot and mouth outbreak

1. the foot-in-mouth disease was a big thing back in 2001 4me689 (talk) 02:34, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Only in the UK - and its notoriety is not exactly established by the fact that you don't know what it's called. Deb (talk) 09:24, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Nepal royal massacre

1. this event caused a lot of political changes in Nepal and is one of the Catalyst to them abolishing their monarchy later on 4me689 (talk) 12:10, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Replacement for Enron and Bush, or for others

1. some good candidates are the first artificial heart, destruction of the Buddhas of Bamiyan, 2001 Marsh Harbour Cessna 402 crash, Versailles wedding hall disaster, and 2001 anthrax attacks 4me689 (talk) 02:34, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

comments

@The ganymedian:, @Wjfox2005:, @Alsoriano97:, @Jim Michael 2:, @Chaheel Riens:, @Loriendrew: and @KoopaDaQuick: what are your thoughts on some of these ideas above, and do you guys have anything that you would suggest. and also you are all welcome to go contribute to User talk:4me689/collage discussions aka my collage discussion page. 4me689 (talk) 20:59, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

The ganymedian (talk) 22:36, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Wikipediaception

some self-flattery I see. Well deserved, but just thought it was kinda funny. 24.161.65.230 (talk) 01:04, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Self-deception too. Deb (talk) 09:23, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Do we have consensus for all these new prose additions?

Doesn't seem to be majorly present on any other main year articles. Plus, the RFC on WPYEARS hasn't closed yet. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 16:07, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

No, we don't. Certainly not without agreement on what should and shouldn't be included. Deb (talk) 18:43, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. Personally, my opinion is to keep the prose in the lead only and to only talk about ongoing/impactful/year-long trending/overarching events, and maybe mention a select few of the most significant deaths. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 19:14, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Some events had been made exclusive to the prose, so I've converted them back into list format. The one exception is the culture section, where I've moved the information to the relevant subpages (2001 in music, 2001 in film, etc) Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:17, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm wondering how we would decide which deaths should be mentioned in the "summary". It's a place where systemic bias is, by its very nature, likely, and that's true whether the Deaths section remains within the article or not. Deb (talk) 17:20, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm inclined to return this article to prose (as in this 7 Jan 2023 revision: Special:Permalink/1132012053), per the global consensus documented at WP:PROSE, which was affirmed in the recent RFC at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Years#RfC on prose in year articles. Do other editors still object to this, and if so, to which part(s) of the prose? Levivich (talk) 19:01, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

I've restored the prose body sections and most of the lead expansions just now. Levivich (talk) 05:10, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Would rather you undo that restoration. The page is now out-of-sync with the other International Year pages format. Would be best to wait & get a consensus 'either way' for all International Year pages, first. GoodDay (talk) 05:33, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Years#RfC on prose in year articles is the consensus 'either way' for all International Year pages. It confirmed WP:USEPROSE. Levivich (talk) 05:35, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

I hope the rest of the International Year pages will likewise be given 'prose'. GoodDay (talk) 05:42, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, me too! I was thinking we might encourage it by not reverting it. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Levivich (talk) 05:52, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Upon second consideration, prose looks a lot better. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 20:19, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

However, there's no consensus that one person should just be allowed to add whatever s/he likes. It's important that it be discussed on the Talk page first. Deb (talk) 17:22, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

This is incorrect. Users do not need permission or consensus to add content to a Wikipedia article. Consensus is assumed until challenged. See WP:EDITCONSENSUS and WP:BOLD. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:42, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Remember that any changes you make without consensus can be removed equally easily, and any unreferenced content you add can also be removed without reference to the Talk page. Deb (talk) 19:39, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

For sure. There are common practices that should be considered of course (especially WP:Revert only when necessary and WP:Don't revert due solely to "no consensus", but that's how Wikipedia is built. Users add content, and then it's refined. I just want to make sure the distinction is made. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:05, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

While we're on the subject, when you added to 2001 in video games, you seem to have copied some of it, word for word, from 2001. Apart from the unnecessary duplication, you don't seem to have followed the instructions in Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Why bother to put this content into the Year article and then include exactly the same words in the Year in Topic article? Deb (talk) 20:20, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

I did not duplicate it. I moved it after it was deleted from this article (which was a WP:DRNC issue, but I digress). I also declared the relevant moves above. It has since been restored to this article. You're more than welcome to flesh it out at 2001 in video games per WP:SUMMARY if you're unhappy with the current duplication. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:36, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

I think I'll just remove it from this article. Clearly it's not necessary here. Deb (talk) 20:54, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

If it's notable enough for its own child article, then it follows that it's notable enough to get at least a paragraph of coverage in its parent article. Alternatively, if it's not notable enough for even a paragraph of coverage in this article, then there probably shouldn't be a 2001 in video games child article. It all comes down to whether there are appropriate sources that convey the year's video games as a notable aspect of the year. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:06, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

It does not follow; by that bizarre reasoning, everything that has its own article should be covered in the Year article. Nor does it follow that the wording should be identical; this unnecessary duplication is highly undesirable. So please make up your mind where you think those paragraphs should be going. Deb (talk) 08:09, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

I've linked to WP:SUMMARY several times. When one user's opinion is contradicted by policies and guidelines, we go with the latter. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 14:24, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, WP:DETAIL is the part of the guideline WP:SUMMARY that says "child articles should expand in more detail on subtopics summarized in the parent article". On the info page WP:PROPERSPLIT, step #6 is "Create a good summary of the subtopic at the parent article." Also, let's remember that the video game industry is larger than the film industry and the music industry combined. I agree with the approach of having a "media" section that summarizes video games, films, and music. Generally, the year article is a parent article for the "year in ___" subarticles, and so should summarize those subarticles, per WP:SUMMARY. It's an inverted pyramid, with the base year article (like 2001) at the top. Levivich (talk) 21:04, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

That doesn't answer my questions below. Deb (talk) 20:24, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

What it didn't confirm was what the change to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Years page should say. Could you please address that? Also, please confirm that you didn't intend the prose summaries to be a carbon copy of the Year in Topic articles. Deb (talk) 08:07, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

There's too much happening all at once, concerning Year pages. As a result, I've kinda back away from it all. GoodDay (talk) 21:51, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Considerations regarding WP:WEIGHT and formatting

With the expansion of the article, it's time to consider WP:WEIGHT and how the information is presented. A few things that might be considered:

• Are the current headings ideal? I think things like Politics or Science are obvious, but are there any that should be reorganized? Are there any major aspects of the subject "2001" that don't currently have a section in the article? WP:WEIGHT and WP:SUMMARY should be taken into consideration here.
• Should year in review sources be incorporated into this article? If so, how should it be done? Examples incldue The Guardian, CNN, The New York Times, and CBS (enjoy that 2001 webpage formatting). It might also be worth looking into year in review sources for specific topics, such as "2001 art in review" that can be briefly summarized here and then expanded upon in 2001 in art per WP:SUMMARY.
• Some of the sections read as prosified lists rather than broad overviews. Disasters is the worst offender, but it occurs to varying degrees throughout the article where remnants of the year article as a list of events are still visible in the prose. Many of these events should probably be reconsidered to determine whether they constitute a significant enough fact about the year to be included in the article per WP:PROPORTION.
• Thoughts on the Events section?
• List of Nobel Prizes – is there sufficient weight for its own section?
• Also note that per this RfC, it seems likely that births and deaths will be removed from this article in the near future.

I would love to hear feedback on these, or on additional considerations that I haven't considered. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:51, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Is there a way to 'mirror' this discussion to all the International Year talkpages? GoodDay (talk) 17:01, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Probably by posting it at the Village Pump. My thought process is that we'll be much better equipped to bring year articles in line with P&G if we figure out what works before trying to replicate it, and I think this is the best place to do it. Compare with 1346, which provides a good example for post-classical years that can be built on and replicated. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:09, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

First, CBS's 2001 640x480 tiled background

1. The headings look "good enough for now". I'm not sure what the actual headings should be. We should build an article or three (with review sources), then see what entries "make the cut," and then re-visit the organization. Do the entries that make the cut fit into one of our categories? Are we categorizing the same as the RSes? We shall see.
2. Yes, we should use review sources, although we should be cautious not to over-rely on US sources (which will overemphasize US news). I'm curious once we combine review sources just how much US news will "make the cut". I agree about also looking at topical reviews (2001 in art, in sports, in economics), which would be good sources for topical-subarticles, and could be summarized in a section in the parent year article. In theory, the way our article work, 2001#Economy should be roughly the same as the lead of 2001 in economics (or something), which in turn would be build around "2001 in economics" reviews. Ditto for 2001#Sports and 2001 in sports.
3. "Prosified lists" will be fixed when it's rewritten using review sources, as we'll be able to also use the sources to guide the context. 2001 is kind of an easier year to do this, as there is one major global event that year and everyone puts (most) everything else in the same context. Meaning: it's not hard to source that the US invasion of Afghanistan happened in response to 9/11. "Disasters" is probably not the right title for that section -- maybe "mass casualty events", or maybe those events should just be put into other categories. I'm not sure, but I think it'll be clearer after the source analysis.
4. Not sure about the events section. I'd revisit that after incorporating the review articles into the prose, and see whether we want a timeline of events at the bottom of the article or a separate article, and whether those events should be the same as the events mentioned in the prose, or a more expansive list. I'd be looking at what the final WP:SIZE was after the prose was set before forming an opinion on it. If we have room for a more expansive timeline, then why not. If we decide to split out the timeline in a separate page (I think that's likely, as the prose will be long enough), then that timeline stand-alone-page could also be more expansive. But maybe we decide to just list the same events that are listed in the prose, but in chrono order instead of topical, all in the same article. I can see arguments for/against these various approaches.
5. Nobel Prizes? Depends on the review RSes. Probably not a full list, that's for List of Nobel laureates and sub-articles. If the review articles list some Nobel winners (which I assume they do, at least for the top prizes, at least in a "2001 in science" review), it might be WP:DUE.

I'd like to ask the same question here that I asked at Talk:2022/Archive 17#One source or multiple sources?: do we include an event if it appears on any review article (one source), or only if it appears in multiple review articles (multiple sources)? Levivich (talk) 18:11, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

The RfC about births and deaths seems to be leaning toward the conclusion of retain if it's short, WP:SPLIT if it gets too long. I think the same thing should work for year articles, and it would better comply with P&G. It's pretty standard to have a separate timeline article for a given subject if it involves a sequence of events (for example, we have both World War I and Timeline of World War I). Again, 1346 is a good example of what it looks like when an article does not need to be split.

For sources, we really need to think about how they're applied. What we don't want is another arbitrary set of criteria that are enforced across a WikiProject (i.e. it must appear in at least three year in review sources). Most of these year in review sources are just links to other news pages without providing much additional context. At a certain point we're just going to have to "write the article" just like we would with any other article. Year articles are a bit broad in scope, but that's true of lots of articles. Take Post-classical history, for example: you're not going to find enough sources for "A Complete Guide to World History from 500 AD to 1500 AD", but users identified what aspects were relevant, found sources for those aspects, and brought them together (also note that there's an associated timeline). We're creating a similar "period of time" article, just on a smaller scale. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:58, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

The best thing about the 1346 article (which is still largely unreferenced) is that the summary is divided into sections geographically, so that particular regions aren't given undue weight. That's one of the most important matters that needs to be addressed. Deb (talk) 11:56, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Yearbook of the United Nations might be a useful source, e.g. for significant geopolitical events around the world. For example, here is Africa 2001. Levivich (talk) 02:26, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Event Collage?

Out of all the post 1980 articles, 1991 and 2001 don't have them? Why is it that? 2600:1700:4191:5340:847B:BBF2:8684:3E0F (talk) 15:10, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

The 2001 collage was contested for being US-centric (which it was). I also don't really see the utility in trying to summarize an entire year into a single picture. :3 F4U (they/it) 16:10, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Also, it's never been agreed that all articles should have them. Deb (talk) 08:22, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

@The0Quester I think the 2001 United Kingdom foot-and-mouth outbreak is not significant enough as it was merely a domestic incident in the UK and did not result in any human cases fatalities. Deb has also opposed including this event in the collage proposal, and personally, I would prefer it to be replaced with the 2001 insurgency in Macedonia. Nagae Iku (talk) 05:39, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

For the record, I disagree with its usage as well and feel its inappropriate to summarize the year with an image collage. ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 12:54, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

I also believe a collage is inappropriate. Not only is it subjective and contentious what to include in what's essentially "the most important events of the year", but it's now redundant since the article is more comprehensive and images can be put in the body. I expect to expand more year articles (presumably in the next few months), and I expect to remove any collages as image space becomes available in the body. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:19, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Oh, this is really frustrating. The editors who made these collages and I spent a lot of time creating them, but would it be possible to solve the dispute over event selection by increasing the collage capacity to a 16-grid layout? Nagae Iku (talk) 08:30, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:2001/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Freedom4U (talk · contribs) 18:52, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

I'll be doing this review over the coming days. :3 F4U (they/it) 18:52, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

First round

Spotcheck

Random spotcheck of 28 sources:

4. The source, which is a primary source (if it had lasting impacts there should be secondary sources on it), since its the newspaper report from the time period, does not call it the EDSA revolution, though it does compare the incident to it. No copyvio.

11. Neither the link nor the archive works. I suspect, given that its a primary source, that I'll have to defer to my statement for ref 4.

24. No copyvio/Verified

28. No copyvio/Verified

32. No copyvio/Verified - Primary source (military treaty)

49. Source states single largest defeat, but does not describe it as the first major offensive by American and Northern Alliance forces. No copyvio - Primary source. (newspaper)

62. No copyvio/Verified

67. Press release from the time period. Does not verify sentence. No copyvio.

78. No copyvio/Verified

81. Source states they're the original ones (rather than a new line?). No copyvio.

101. No copyvio/Verified - Is aviation24 a reliable source?

104. No copyvio/Verified

108. No copyvio/Verified

122. 750 page report with no page numbers cited.

139. No copyvio/Verified

152. No copyvio/Verified - perhaps [2] might be a better ref

156. No copyvio/Verified - Primary source

158. Perhaps Freedom of Mobile Multimedia Access might be worth linking there. No copyvio/Verified - Primary source

177. ?? - The title of the source is "Japanese Colleges and Universities"; I don't have access, but I highly doubt that this is the right ref

184. No copyvio/Verified - Primary source

188. No copyvio/Verified - Primary source

189. No copyvio/Verified - Primary source

202. No copyvio/Verified - Primary source

203. No copyvio/Verified - Primary source

213. No copyvio - The numbers don't match the ref.

222. No copyvio/Verified - Primary source

248. No copyvio - The ref doesn't mention the Ukrainian Air Force.

256. No copyvio/Verified - Primary source

258. No copyvio/Verified

My broad comments after going through these sources is that the article relies way too heavily on primary sources (particularly press releases or primary source documents which should definitely be replaced, but also breaking news reports from the time period). I would also suggest you go through the article and verify every source.

Missing items

I believe there are some items that are not covered in the article that should be; or are listed in the article, but should be included as prose. I'll add more as I find them.

• 2001 Turkish economic crisis
• Patriot Act

Potentially added as prose?

• Founding of Wikipedia
• China's entry into the WTO had long lasting impacts

Lede

At the moment, the lede is far too small and doesn't adequately cover the content of the article. For example, it lacks any coverage of the culture section, the climate section, the population section, or the economy section.

Population

The "Population" section should really be better titled "Demographics". Also I don't think the see also is appropriate here.

• The world population on January 1, 2001, was estimated to be 6.190 billion people, and it increased to 6.272 billion people by January 1, 2002. - Remove "it"
• 2001 was designated as International Year of Volunteers by the United Nations. Necessary?
• The number of global refugees in 2001 was approximately 12 million. Awkward phrasing

Conflicts

• Ref 26 appears to be a pretty good source and should really be the kind of source used for the rest of the article.
• The Bandaranaike Airport attack was a deadly attack Could be phrased better to provide more information and less repetition
• on April 18, and I would suggest replacing the , and with a semicolon
• notable conflict The source says its the only interstate conflict
• The Second Intifada marked increased conflict between Israel and Palestine in 2001 when terrorists affiliated with Hamas carried out suicide bombings and other attacks on Israeli citizens. Both refs here are primary sources and the sentence appears to vastly oversimplify the conflict. See: [3]
• The September 11 attacks by Al-Qaeda took place when 19 terrorists hijacked four commercial airplanes and crashed two of them into the World Trade Center, one into the Pentagon, and one near Stonycreek Township, Pennsylvania. 2,977 people were killed; the attacks and the subsequent global war on terror were events that defined 2001. Unwieldy sentence that should be split. I would note that The September 11 attacks by Al-Qaeda took place specifically is pretty awkward phrasing.
• The United States demanded that the Taliban extradite Al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden and end state-sponsored terrorism in Afghanistan. Ref needed. NYTimes article doesn't state that.
• invasion of Afghanistan Should be wikilinked
• intensifying the ongoing Afghan Civil War Not verified
• Why is Hamid Karzai wikilinked the third time he's mentioned, instead of here?
• Wikilink to Afghan Interim Administration

Other

@Thebiguglyalien: Sorry for taking a bit over the seven days! This was a long article and it took a while to get through it. These are just my initial comments, I'll add more in a new section once I give it a few more reads. :3 F4U (they/it) 13:39, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

I'll note that this is a sort of "trial run" for years articles as GA nominations. Currently the only one is 1346, and that one is a bit different given the different level of coverage for that era. I've also been working on 2002, where I put more focus on secondary sources. I could definitely copy over some of the sourcing methodology from that article. But with all that said, any feedback for this as its own article is helpful. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:16, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Freedom4U, I'm sorry, I've been neglecting my own GA nominations to review others this month. Now that the GA drive should be finishing up in a few days, I can hopefully focus most of my wiki-attention on this. So presumably the first step is to start putting together some secondary sources (like I said, 2002 is an example of such an article with secondary sources). I'll get started on that soon unless you have any thoughts. The other thing is the timeline: the general consensus so far has been to leave those in as the rest of the article is expanded, but that raises questions about sourcing and inclusion criteria. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:10, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Freedom4U, it took longer than I had hoped, but I've redone the sourcing for the article's prose, and I think it's much stronger now. I have yet to get into the events timeline, because that's a little trickier. I opened a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Years#How should year timelines be sourced? to elaborate on the issue and see if anyone else has feedback. It looks like this is probably going to be the main obstacle to promotion. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:37, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

@Thebiguglyalien: Thanks for the ping, you've got my attention right as I've gotten a lot of free time again to edit again :) I've looked at the changes and here's just a few things I've noticed while reading it.

• It escalated as terrorists affiliated with Hamas carried out attacks on Israeli citizens and the Israeli military responded with strikes against Palestine. This doesn't appear to match the text of the source. In particular, it doesn't specifically single out Hamas nor does it call the Palestinians terrorists. The article also doesn't reflect the weight the source provides in describing Israel's response as disproportionate. The source also doesn't describe the attacks as "tit for tat", which the article seems to suggest.
• I'm loving the additions to the art section. I knew there was more material to expand that out.
• I'm unsure about whether we should really be weighting [4] (cited in A lawsuit sought to break up Microsoft as a monopoly, but it was unsuccessful.) Partially because the link includes "/blog/" and also partially because it doesn't seem to reflect our article on the subject.
• amid its own religious disputes Taking from the source, perhaps better to rephrase this as amid the introduction of Islamic law.
• The Incheon International Airport Remove "The".
• I know there's some level of an intersection between politics and law, but I think perhaps some of the politics section would better fall under a "Law" section (stuff determined by lawmakers in "Politics" and stuff determined by courts/lawyers in "Law"). The last two paragraphs of "International" and certain parts of the last paragraph of "Domestic" might be better served by such a section.
• The mini paragraph on the two coups might benefit from being moved up to make it the second paragraph of the section.
• The mini paragraph on education doesn't seem to fit in the "Science" section. If anything (other than making education its own section), I think it might better fit in politics.

Good work on all the improvements. I definitely think that some of the removals could be re-added given more sources. ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 08:57, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

The other thing we need to be careful on providing undue weight for sources from institutions like the World Bank, IMF, UN, EU, etc., as opposed to academic sources and reviews. Anyways, speaking of the EU, I found this report from EIRO which may provide useful sourcing for economic data. ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 09:10, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

This Lancet article might help with demographics and health. This Lancet article might help with health. It's a shame this article on prisons is US-only, but it might still be helpful. Potentially this article (I can't access it atm because Sage is upgrading their site) on Islamophobia post 9/11. There's this article on ethnic violence in southern Thailand between 2001-03. (I've found these sources thanks to the "intitle:2001" keyword which I just learned existed for Google Scholar)

In addition, I think the 2001 Ukrainian political crisis could be added as prose and the inclusion of the 2001 Ethiopian withdrawal from Eritrea following a peace agreement would also be justified. I also think national-level legislative elections definitely can be included in the article--of which, there was the 2001 Polish parliamentary election, the 2001 Singaporean general election, among others (I mean the 2001 UK elections are basically equivalent to these and they're included). eBay is also capitalized incorrectly in the article and when discussing the Argentine economic crisis, it should include a wikilink to December 2001 riots in Argentina.

My suggestions for expansion here don't really come from the broadness criteria, but rather from the neutrality criteria, as I think their current exclusion are reflective of systemic bias. ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 10:38, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

The main change I made since we started this a couple months ago was switching from fact-first to source-first writing—something I'm trying to do in all of my editing. So I've tried not to say "I need to find a source for this event". Instead, my workflow has been to find a source that covers the year or one very general aspect of it internationally and then to summarize its main points. The Britannica Year in Review and Time Annual listed below were really helpful with this, as was the Annual Register that I found. Intergovernmental and NGO reports were also really helpful, and I don't think using them is significantly different than using an academic source as far as GA is concerned. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 14:46, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

• I rewrote the Intifada summary. I want to keep it simple, and more importantly, I have zero desire for the Palestine/Israel obsessives to swarm around this article and squabble about every word for months, as they tend to do. I've sourced it to my go-to general source, the Britannica Year in Review, which had a simple one paragraph summary of the events.
• I wasn't sure about the list of artists who were subjects of exhibitions, but if it works, then great.
• I've removed the sentence on Microsoft's court case, for the reasons you specified and because
• Great idea for law. I had trouble deciding whether a few of those belonged in domestic or international, so this is a natural solution.
• I was also unsure about the education controversies, and politics is a nice fit for them. I think the opening of a university fits better under science than politics though. Like you said, the alternative would be to create a separate education section, but there's not enough international education info in a given year to justify that.
• I made the other minor grammar and formatting changes.

Thebiguglyalien (talk) 15:08, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Freedom4U, we've had this open for a few months now. Hopefully we can wrap it up. In your opinion, are any further changes needed before this meets the GA criteria? Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:16, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

@Thebiguglyalien I'm sorry for the lack of reply. I'm just writing this so that you know I've seen your message. I've been reading through the article and I believe there shouldn't be anything holding up promotion. Expect another reply soon. Cheers ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 14:07, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Drive-by comment by Igguage

It's really nice to see someone working on the individual year articles, I hope we get to see many more of them from you!

I think it would be a good idea to rely more on yearbooks and the like, e.g. Britannica 2001: The Year in Review and Time Annual 2002. It would be more appropriate for this type of article to include to a greater degree what reliable secondary sources consider to be the most important events, rather than what Wikipedia editors think is most important.

(I haven't read the books I mentioned so I don't know if they are good/reliable sources or not, it was just to give some examples)

Igguage (talk) 06:14, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

@Igguage Ah, those were the kinds of books I was trying to find! I completely forgot that I could search libraries (and cough shadow libraries) for books instead of using Google which failed to give good results. I see also:

• 2001 Annual Review of Development Effectiveness: Making Choices from the World Bank
• AIDS Clinical Review 2000 2001 from Paul Volberding, along with many other year in review fro the sciences, but I believe that section is reasonably well-sourced
• Review of Fisheries in Oecd Countries: Country Statistics 1999-2001 from the OECD
• The World Health Report 2001: Mental Health : New Understanding, New Hope from the WHO
• Advocate: Webster's Timeline History, 2001 - 2007
• The World in Photographs: 2001 from AFP

The one big thing is that because these sources are all going to be in the English language (presuming you don't speak another language), and like many other articles, but even more here, is going to be the subject of English-language bias and bias for the global north. :3 F4U (they/it) 12:44, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Huh this appears to be your first edit to Wikipedia, how exactly did you find this GA review? :3 F4U (they/it) 12:45, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Its my first edit with the account. I have read Wikipedia for a long time, and have also made several edits as an IP =) Igguage (talk) 13:27, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Review

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

Looks good! ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 08:57, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"Births and deaths" section

I tried to figure it out how to use "births and deaths" section that was split as per discussion on January 2023 and March 2023 RfC, later it changed to "See also" as section is not appropriate for year articles. In that case, "births and deaths" could be a conventional section layout and WP:SUMMARYHATNOTE for WP:YEARS. 112.205.179.117 (talk) 04:45, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

We generally don't create empty sections just to use hatnotes. There is no reason why a see also section is not appropriate for year articles. If there are see also links, we usually put them in the see also section unless there's a good reason not to. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:03, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

We implement this recently-created style guide as an essay on style regarding to "births and deaths" section. For example like this, a year 2012 section is replaced with "births and deaths" section alongside with {{Main}} hatnote. 112.205.179.117 (talk) 21:44, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what is done on a different article or in some essay. It doesn't make sense to have a heading just for some hatnotes. They should be replaced with a see also section in all of these articles. Maybe included in a navigational template somewhere. But not just thrown in under an otherwise unused heading. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:26, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Otherwise, "births and deaths" section will be fine. As the style guide, that intend to apply all articles while focusing on the project's scope. 112.205.179.117 (talk) 12:01, 22 September 2023 (UTC)